Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000
- 1019)
TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2006
MS LIN
HOMER, MS
MANDIE CAMPBELL
AND MR
PHIL WHEATLEY
Q1000 Mr Clappison: Do you know if
any of the eight have been detained since 23 May?
Ms Homer: I do not believe they
have, no. You raised a question, which the Home Secretary is due
to reply to, about us moving to publicity in order to try and
find those ones who are proving most elusive.
Q1001 Mr Clappison: When I asked
the Home Secretary about this, to paraphrase his words, he said
there might be "operational reasons in connection with the
police about this". Has the advice of the police actually
been sought about this?
Ms Homer: We have begun discussions
with them, and I think their view is that we need to look on a
case-by-case basis at the benefits and disbenefits of publicity
in each case.
Q1002 Mr Clappison: Will you bear
in mind the sort of public concern that these people are still
out and about?
Ms Homer: Of course.
Q1003 Mr Clappison: Of the other
149 more serious offences, and these are more serious because
they have committed a crime involving a violent or sexual element,
as of 23 May I believe 83 of those were still not under control.
Can you tell us today if any more of them have been brought under
control, or not?
Ms Homer: I am sorry, it is the
same answer. We have in the region of 200 offenders detained.
It does not seem sensible for me to try and verify the accuracy
of those figures until we have concluded our detailed investigation.
Q1004 Mr Clappison: The figures are
important in this. There were 83 more serious offenders; and there
is, according to the Home Secretary's record of evidence, quite
an occurrence of re-offending amongst these offenders. They have
committed about 40 offences that were known about. Can you tell
us if any of them have been brought under control?
Ms Homer: We are making further
detentions each day but, as I say, I think one of the things we
have been very keen to ensure is that we track more effectively
not only which offenders we think we have got, but where they
are going when they are bailed and, if they are bailed, whether
the licence arrangements are adhered to.
Q1005 Mr Clappison: Are you in a
position to date to tell me if any, and how many, of the 83 more
serious offenders have been brought under control?
Ms Homer: No, as I previously
indicated, the Home Secretary and I feel that he should bring
accurate information back to Parliament when we have completed
the data.
Q1006 Mr Clappison: What does "under
control" mean in these circumstances?
Ms Homer: It clearly could mean
a variety of things. It could mean "in prison"; it could
mean "in detention"; it could mean "tagged";
it could mean under "licence or bail supervision". I
think one of the other things we are keen to try and do is ensure
that our information is capable of being interrogated so that
it can distinguish between those clearly.
Q1007 Mr Clappison: Out of the 149
more serious offenders, only 66 were under your control, and you
are telling us that not all of them were actually under lock and
key but some under tagging, under supervisional tagging and out
in the community?
Ms Homer: I am telling you that
is the work I have put in hand to be able to answer with a more
confident level of accuracy than we have achieved in the past.
Q1008 Mr Clappison: Can I suggest
to you from the public's point of view, the public might be a
little bit concerned that so little seems to be known about what
is happening with the most serious and the more serious offenders
even though you have had, by your own admission, since March when
the alarm bells first started ringing to try and sort this out
to find out where they are?
Ms Homer: I would accept that
this is a matter that causes great concern amongst the public.
Q1009 Mr Clappison: How long is it
going to be before you can give us some accurate figures about
the eight most serious or the 83 more serious offenders?
Ms Homer: I am sorry I think all
I can do is repeat my earlier comments. Potentially I have to
balance the accuracy against the speed. I think Mr Winnick made
the comment about reliability. We are not pulling back in any
of our operational activity, in any of our casework activity.
What I am seeking to do is not report those figures in until we
are confident about them. It does not mean the teams are not out
there searching, that the teams not doing the casework.
Q1010 Mr Clappison: But you are not
in a position to date to tell us whether anybody has been found
or not?
Ms Homer: I am in a position to
say that activity is happening on a daily basis, but I am trying
not to be drawn into giving you a figure that will prove to be
inaccurate when I come back to check it. I apologise for that
but I think you can only really have a repeat of what I said earlier.
Q1011 Mr Clappison: Finally on these
points, there are two different regimes here—one of deporting
through a court recommendation, and the other being removed because
the presence of the offender is not conducive to the public good.
There are two separate regimes and two separate sets of criteria.
Do you think there is a case for having one criterion so there
is one point to look at, and this could be monitored better than
it has been in the past?
Ms Homer: Yes, I think the Home
Secretary said something very similar when he was before you.
He has asked us to undertake a review of the policy, both to ensure
that it is as rigorous as possible, but also to ensure that our
staff have the best chance of applying a system that is understandable
and has clarity. I think there is some real value in us looking
at the policy context overall and making whatever changes are
deemed necessary, but then making sure those are implemented into
clear, easier to follow guidance.
Q1012 Chairman: Could I just check
one point, the serious criminals, the 80 or so that we are trying
to trace, how many of them were theoretically subject to supervision
when you started looking for them?
Ms Homer: 19.
Q1013 Chairman: There were 19 people
who in theory were in contact with probation but probation turned
out not to know where they were?
Ms Homer: No, in practice probation
knew where they were and certainly in many of those cases those
were amongst some of the early people we re-detained.
Q1014 Chairman: No, I am talking
about the ones we have not yet traced. Of the serious criminal
we have not yet managed to trace, are there any of those who actually
should have been easy to trace because they still had probation
or parole licences out there and they should have been reporting
or should have been under supervision?
Ms Homer: Not that I am aware
of.
Q1015 Mr Clappison: Just to be clear
on this, is it the case that you know what these figures are but
are not prepared to tell us; or that you just do not know what
the figures are for the most serious and more serious offenders
around and about?
Ms Homer: No. It is the case that
we think we know a number of pieces of data but we have
been in that position more than once and we are seeking to validate
the information before we share it more widely. Yes, we have working
figures. I have mentioned the number roughly that we think we
have detained. I can tell you that we have taken over 800 substantive
decisions to deport. The difficulty is, if I go beyond that and
seek to put an accurate figure on it, until we have completed
the audit I am almost duty-bound to then come back and tell you
I have got that accurate figure wrong. That is the position I
am in. The management information I have got and we are using
I would accept is not reliable and accurate enough.
Chairman: I think the Committee will
want to report before the summer recess so you can assume that
we will be asking formally for the most recent information you
have, whether you think that is final or not.
Q1016 Mr Spring: On 23 May a statement
was made that there would be no initial decision to deport in
the 241 cases, which was 1,019 minus 778; but it was not clear
whether a decision had been made that these people should not
be deported, or whether they had simply not been considered yet.
Having made that initial decision to deport 778 of these criminals,
what are you actually doing now about the other 241?
Ms Homer: The remaining figure
is a mixture of cases where we have decided not to deport and
cases awaiting consideration and what we are doing in relation
to those. In the cases where we are taking an initial decision
not to deport on the basis of the preliminary look, a consideration
of the nature of the offence, the application of our criteria
to that case, we are then having all of those cases double-checked
and validated by someone else before we turn that into a formal
decision not to deport. Those were the initial decisions taken.
In the remainder of the cases, which is a pretty small number
now, we are concluding those cases through to an initial decision
and then will do the substantive casework.
Q1017 Mr Spring: When is this going
to be concluded, having said there is only a small number?
Ms Homer: There is only a small
number where an initial decision is awaited. Once an initial decision
is taken we effectively have to prepare the substantive case for
deportation; that then has to be served; there is then a right
to make representations on that case; we then make that formal
and final and then there is a right to appeal. The process from
an initial decision to final deportation can be one of a number
of weeks and months, depending on the level of challenge, including
court challenge.
Q1018 Mr Spring: I think I heard
you correctly when you said a decision had been made not to deport
some of the 241?
Ms Homer: Yes.
Q1019 Mr Spring: How many?
Ms Homer: Initially we have looked
at about a couple of hundred cases where the initial decision
was not to deport.
| 
